Merge tag 'locking-core-2024-07-15' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip

Pull locking updates from Ingo Molnar:

 - Jump label fixes, including a perf events fix that originally
   manifested as jump label failures, but was a serialization bug at the
   usage site

 - Mark down_write*() helpers as __always_inline, to improve WCHAN
   debuggability

 - Misc cleanups and fixes

* tag 'locking-core-2024-07-15' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip:
  locking/rwsem: Add __always_inline annotation to __down_write_common() and inlined callers
  jump_label: Simplify and clarify static_key_fast_inc_cpus_locked()
  jump_label: Clarify condition in static_key_fast_inc_not_disabled()
  jump_label: Fix concurrency issues in static_key_slow_dec()
  perf/x86: Serialize set_attr_rdpmc()
  cleanup: Standardize the header guard define's name

1 files changed, 46 insertions, 28 deletions

diff --git a/kernel/jump_label.c b/kernel/jump_label.c
index 3218fa5688b9..4ad5ed8adf96 100644
--- a/kernel/jump_label.c
+++ b/kernel/jump_label.c
@@ -131,13 +131,16 @@ bool static_key_fast_inc_not_disabled(struct static_key *key)
 	STATIC_KEY_CHECK_USE(key);
 	/*
 	 * Negative key->enabled has a special meaning: it sends
-	 * static_key_slow_inc() down the slow path, and it is non-zero
-	 * so it counts as "enabled" in jump_label_update().  Note that
-	 * atomic_inc_unless_negative() checks >= 0, so roll our own.
+	 * static_key_slow_inc/dec() down the slow path, and it is non-zero
+	 * so it counts as "enabled" in jump_label_update().
+	 *
+	 * The INT_MAX overflow condition is either used by the networking
+	 * code to reset or detected in the slow path of
+	 * static_key_slow_inc_cpuslocked().
 	 */
 	v = atomic_read(&key->enabled);
 	do {
-		if (v <= 0 || (v + 1) < 0)
+		if (v <= 0 || v == INT_MAX)
 			return false;
 	} while (!likely(atomic_try_cmpxchg(&key->enabled, &v, v + 1)));
 
@@ -150,7 +153,7 @@ bool static_key_slow_inc_cpuslocked(struct static_key *key)
 	lockdep_assert_cpus_held();
 
 	/*
-	 * Careful if we get concurrent static_key_slow_inc() calls;
+	 * Careful if we get concurrent static_key_slow_inc/dec() calls;
 	 * later calls must wait for the first one to _finish_ the
 	 * jump_label_update() process.  At the same time, however,
 	 * the jump_label_update() call below wants to see
@@ -159,22 +162,24 @@ bool static_key_slow_inc_cpuslocked(struct static_key *key)
 	if (static_key_fast_inc_not_disabled(key))
 		return true;
 
-	jump_label_lock();
-	if (atomic_read(&key->enabled) == 0) {
-		atomic_set(&key->enabled, -1);
+	guard(mutex)(&jump_label_mutex);
+	/* Try to mark it as 'enabling in progress. */
+	if (!atomic_cmpxchg(&key->enabled, 0, -1)) {
 		jump_label_update(key);
 		/*
-		 * Ensure that if the above cmpxchg loop observes our positive
-		 * value, it must also observe all the text changes.
+		 * Ensure that when static_key_fast_inc_not_disabled() or
+		 * static_key_slow_try_dec() observe the positive value,
+		 * they must also observe all the text changes.
 		 */
 		atomic_set_release(&key->enabled, 1);
 	} else {
-		if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!static_key_fast_inc_not_disabled(key))) {
-			jump_label_unlock();
+		/*
+		 * While holding the mutex this should never observe
+		 * anything else than a value >= 1 and succeed
+		 */
+		if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!static_key_fast_inc_not_disabled(key)))
 			return false;
-		}
 	}
-	jump_label_unlock();
 	return true;
 }
 
@@ -247,20 +252,32 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(static_key_disable);
 
 static bool static_key_slow_try_dec(struct static_key *key)
 {
-	int val;
-
-	val = atomic_fetch_add_unless(&key->enabled, -1, 1);
-	if (val == 1)
-		return false;
+	int v;
 
 	/*
-	 * The negative count check is valid even when a negative
-	 * key->enabled is in use by static_key_slow_inc(); a
-	 * __static_key_slow_dec() before the first static_key_slow_inc()
-	 * returns is unbalanced, because all other static_key_slow_inc()
-	 * instances block while the update is in progress.
+	 * Go into the slow path if key::enabled is less than or equal than
+	 * one. One is valid to shut down the key, anything less than one
+	 * is an imbalance, which is handled at the call site.
+	 *
+	 * That includes the special case of '-1' which is set in
+	 * static_key_slow_inc_cpuslocked(), but that's harmless as it is
+	 * fully serialized in the slow path below. By the time this task
+	 * acquires the jump label lock the value is back to one and the
+	 * retry under the lock must succeed.
 	 */
-	WARN(val < 0, "jump label: negative count!\n");
+	v = atomic_read(&key->enabled);
+	do {
+		/*
+		 * Warn about the '-1' case though; since that means a
+		 * decrement is concurrent with a first (0->1) increment. IOW
+		 * people are trying to disable something that wasn't yet fully
+		 * enabled. This suggests an ordering problem on the user side.
+		 */
+		WARN_ON_ONCE(v < 0);
+		if (v <= 1)
+			return false;
+	} while (!likely(atomic_try_cmpxchg(&key->enabled, &v, v - 1)));
+
 	return true;
 }
 
@@ -271,10 +288,11 @@ static void __static_key_slow_dec_cpuslocked(struct static_key *key)
 	if (static_key_slow_try_dec(key))
 		return;
 
-	jump_label_lock();
-	if (atomic_dec_and_test(&key->enabled))
+	guard(mutex)(&jump_label_mutex);
+	if (atomic_cmpxchg(&key->enabled, 1, 0))
 		jump_label_update(key);
-	jump_label_unlock();
+	else
+		WARN_ON_ONCE(!static_key_slow_try_dec(key));
 }
 
 static void __static_key_slow_dec(struct static_key *key)